I know that you all are familiar with the Deck of Most Wanted Iraqi's (there is a pop up if you go to the SP main page).

There is now a new "Deck of Weasels"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/124825.shtml

No, I won't be buying a deck (probably a shocker to some), but it is pretty funny! :lol:

[ May 18, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

I'd like to see a deck just to see who made it on. The left will cry about free speech (speak out, and you end up on a deck of cards!) in an effort to limit the free speech of the people making this deck.

Now don't get me wrong, this deck is offensive in the extreme, and on that basis I wouldn't buy one even thought I'm a right winger, but the makers still have a right ro make the jokes they want, just as the people portrayed can say what they want.

Funny, it seems someone in France had the same idea.

http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/jeudecartes.html

I see it as a joke and I don't feel offended or something similar and I bet that the same applies for most of the people, who are on this deck, especially Europeans, since they are used to receive more extreme mocking in their own countries from their political opponents in the press and in tv shows. My question is what would happened if a "deck of warmongers" or a "deck of neonazis" (which would contain the members of the current US administration and their allies) would be released? What would be the reaction of the conservatives and of those who supported the war? Would they consider it as a joke or would they start screaming about treason and disrespect to the authorities?

Darkwolf, I see your thread as invitation to post my favourite American-joke at the moment. :rolleyes: :D ;)

This is the transcript of the ACTUAL radio conversation of a US Naval ship and the Canadians, off the coast of Newfoundland, Oct 95.
Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.



CANADIANS: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South, to avoid a collision.

AMERICANS: Recommend YOU divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the North, to avoid a collision.

CANADIANS: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

AMERICANS: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert your course.

CANADIANS: Negative. I say again, You will have to divert your course.

AMERICANS: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN. THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET, WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS, AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S 15 DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTERMEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

CANADIANS: We are a lighthouse. Your call.

Just so people are clear: Yago's quote is in fact a joke and has no basis in reality.

Wow Darkwolf, that page reminded me so much about www.whitehouse.org (http://www.whitehouse.org) . Are you sure that those two pages arent working together? Both are proud Republican WASP sites that promotes the right way of thinking.

By "right" I trust you mean as opposed to left rather than as opposed to correct, Joacqin? ;)

I would find a deck of Warmongers just as offensive -- and funny -- as I find this deck under discussion. Funny how those two things so often go together. As for Yago's joke, Yago, be careful! That joke's an antique!

Joacqin,

proud Republican WASP That is offensive to the growing community of minority members of the Republican Party. :( Some of my favorite conservative Republicans are black, Clarence Thomas, JC Watts and Condalezza Rice to start with. The Democratic Party has been poorly representing interests the minorities in this country for decades, and using terms like your quote to imply that Republicans do not represent them. It was the Democrats who fought equal rights and integration in this country, not the Republicans. The fact that the Democrats have fooled poor and uneducated people in the nation to believe that Dems have their best interests at heart is nothing short of a confidence game. And that game is finally starting to unwind on them.


Newsmax.com is an admittedly right extreme wing/conservative/republican sight. I never represented it as anything else. I am not promoting it, or alleging that it has any credibility. I do not know if they are working together with whitehouse.org, but to me it looks like whitehouse.org is a leftist site, taking satirical potshots at the President. But just so everyone is clear, whitehouse.org is not affiliated in any way with the executive branch of the US government. :rolleyes:

for Yago's joke, Yago, be careful! That joke's an antique! Dam, but it wasn't an antique for me. It reached me pair E-mail about 2 weeks ago. :) :D ;)

feeling backwarded, not updated. Hm. Should get some friends which are not backwarded mountainers. Move to the city ? To the lowlands ? Emmigration ?

By the way, I love the last international outpost of antimaricansm worldwide. The place were antimaricanism is save, sound, sober, uncensored and uncompromisingly harsh: Jon Stewart's daily show international edition. That guy rocks.

Edit:

Darkwolf wrote:

It was the Democrats who fought equal rights and integration in this country, not the Republicans That's right Darkwolf. But aren't you missing out on something ? In the 40's, the democrats started to change their policies and made it possible for the blacks to gain rights ? A movement spearheaded by the democrat presidents FDR (acutally, mainly his wife), Truman and finally LBJ? Who followed the line, that a change in traditional views of the democracy party was long over due. And doesn't the democratic party account for the only president which wasn't a WASP ? (JFK, even if he was a dork).

And did this change not make a lot of democrats to change their party to republican ? Most prominent, Ronald Regaen (from a North-state) and that mummy of a 100 year old ex-senator from South-Carolina (I guess) ?

[ May 09, 2003, 20:48: Message edited by: Yago ]

There are those who would argue that the Democrats, with their lowest-common-denominator style of social policy and tendency to buy votes through welfare subsidies, are actually doing minorities a great disservice andworking to reverse the cause of civil rights.

At Rallymama.

Now, the exact details of domestic US-plolicies are unkown to me. But I guess, if I was American, I would be like Chandos the Red a green. I don't think that the democrats are saints. I personally think they are just "Republican-light". The Republican party is in my point of view, communism for the rich and the party of big Goverment and a tax-money-waste machine. But that's just my point of view.

Yago - the Demoncrats (err. . . spelling error intentional) are the "big government" party. The Republicans are the "slightly smaller government than what the Democrats want" party. Neither thrills me in the slightest.

Yago,

The Republicans are believed to be for the rich because the Democrats have told that lie for so that everyone believes it. The Democrats have based that lie on the mantra that the Republicans want to reduce taxes for the rich, and not for the poor. THE POOR DO NOT PAY TAXES IN THIS COUNTRY! (not yelling at you, just yelling because this frustrates me!) The bottom 60% of wage earners in this country do not pay a dime of taxes, and the bottom 50% receiver back more than they paid in when they file at the end of the year. You can't give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes! :toofar:

The Republicans are about responsibility. Make people responsible for themselves, let them keep more of the money they make, and let them spend or invest it how they choose. That action provides more food and resources than when the government takes it and hands it out.

The Democrats are about making people feel good. "Oh, those nasty old doctors are charging you too much, let us tax the minority of people in this county (the rich) so that the majority of you can have "free" health care (of course they know it will be just like Canada where people either die on the waiting list for things like a heart bypass or come to America where they can get it done now)", or "those nasty rich people, they take (you will never hear a Dem say that the rich earn their money, they appropriate it, but you will hear them say that the gov't "earns" its money :rolleyes: ) more resources than they deserve, so if you vote for me I will give you a $300 check, which of course the government "earned" in its revenue, (aka appropriated from the rich)"

So the under educated sheeples (cross of a sheep and a person) in this country take a small bribe, passing up the chance to have greater economic gain. Meanwhile the Republicans keep trying to do things to get the economy going so that people won't need socialized medicine and welfare checks, all the while being stabbed in the back by the very politicians who claim to "represent the people". :rolleyes:

At Darkwolf

I just realized, I should have avoided going more in detail about political parties in general. I should have see it coming and after the one with the mummy out out of South-Carolina should have stopped. (he, he, oof, South-Carolia was right then). As human expirience and common sense tells, discussion about parties and their politics usally go on for ages. I just want to end it like this, everything you said in the post above sounds plausible, it's you're opinion and it's fine with me. But I have one recept against right-wing parties. I try to save the economy and the free market of my own country and don't vote for them. :D :D :D

Edit: Ironacally, last time I voted for our "republican" party. The American republican party gives republicanism a bad name. :D ;)

[ May 10, 2003, 12:45: Message edited by: Yago ]

Why is it believed that just because you like taking potshop at the American Republican party you support the American Democratic party? For me they are both unspeakably evil, the GOP is just a little more blatant about it. :p

Secondly I would say that being 'WASP' is not as much about ethnicity as it is about attitude. Rice is as WASP as you can get in my mind.

Unspeakably evil?? O....K....

Someone educate me as to what WASP stands for.

Darkwolf - The poor in America don't pay taxes because they don't have any money. But, let's get straight on a few things: Everyone in America pays taxes -- sales tax, state income tax, homeowners tax, tax on gasoline, etc. The poor have no way around these taxes. The good thing about it is that the rich don't either. So those are as fair as can be done with the current system.

Now, there is the fed tax, which I suppose is the tax you are referring to in your post, by your comment that "the poor don't pay taxes."
That is one of the uses of the poor for the American conservative elite. Not only are they used as an example of what happens to those who fail to live-up to the "American dream," but they help ensure that the rich are continued to by erroneously admired by the middle-class, into which most of us fall.

While the rich are avoiding paying taxes through loop-holes and high-priced lawyers and accountants, the middle class continues to believe that the poor get the hand-outs while the rich are paying through the nose to keep America going. That is the American fairy tale.

But the rich are smart, they know that if the poor did not exsist that they would not be able to maintain the illusion of their moral status, and elite superiority to the rest of us. Thus, they also make them their "clients."
While most average families are trying to maintain a decent existence, the rich are busy with charity affairs, which they then hold up to show us their "benevolent" nature.

As to your comment that the republicans are the party of "responsiblity," I agree: they are responsible to the pharmaceutical, insurance, big oil compaines, large banks, etc. That is where the real welfare action in America resides. The conservative movement has come to its fruiation when they are giving hand-outs to this pack of scoundrels. Whether it is keeping wages low, to keep the poor as they are, or they are subsidizing phoney new contracts with the fat cats, the conservatives are keeping the American dream a reality for those who benefit from it the most -- the rich.

I don't feel like arguing with the above post at the moment, and I'm sure that Darkwolf will do a fine job of responding, so I'll just drop this in:

Isn't becoming rich and free and happy the American dream? Rags to riches -- O. Henry and all that. Why do we resent the ones who succeeded?

Reminds me of a joke I heard once. If the details are a little off, well, I don't remember it that well, but the point is still the same.

An Englishman, a Frenchman, and a Russian were walking together along a deserted beach when they found a bottle lying in the sand. When they pulled the top off, a genie appeared. "I can only grant three wishes, so each of you will get one," he told them. The Englishman replied, "I wish I was richer than everyone else." The Frenchman said, "I wish I had more women than any of my friends." The Russian thought for awhile, and then said, "I am poor; I have no cow. I wish my neighbor's cow was dead."

Capstone - I'll just settle for being free and happy someday. You can keep the rich.

@Chandos the Red: I, too, will leave the job of responding to your rant about the GOP in the capable hands of Darkwolf. ;) :D But I want to ask, are you familiar with the Earned Income Tax Credit? I'm not current on the specific details and income levels of this program, but here's the essence. If you're "poor enough" to not have owed tax in the previous year, you can get a refund in the current year on tax money YOU never paid in the first place. :eek:

If this sounds fair and reasonable to you, could you please explain the justification to me? I just don't see it. :hmm:

Rally - Yes, I think Enron may have used something similiar to it. Although I'm not an accountant. I would still like my 800 million dollar refund also. But then I'm not a large corporation.

To arch-conservatives: Don't feel left out, Darkwolf is not the only capable one on these boards, although he is very good and I always look forward to his rants. I know there are more of you out there. Come on, put that issue of the Wall Street Journal down and feel free to respond.

Edit:
By the way, the last politician I heard giving away money for votes was GW with his pie-in-the- sky tax cut. And I think it was right at about 300.00 too, unless you were rich of course. In that case it was much larger.

[ May 10, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Capstone wrote:
Isn't becoming rich and free and happy the American dream? Rags to riches -- O. Henry and all that. Why do we resent the ones who succeeded?We don not resent their success. We resent that they are stealing away from their responsibility as citizens. Paying taxes is part of that responsibility, if one is in the appropriate financial situation.
In my eyes, the one who has more money should be paying more taxes than the one who has less (and I do not mean absolute sums).

Darkwolf wrote:
The bottom 60% of wage earners in this country do not pay a dime of taxes, and the bottom 50% receiver back more than they paid in when they file at the end of the year.If this is right, what does this say about the development of wages in the US?

[ May 11, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

"he bottom 60% of wage earners in this country do not pay a dime of taxes, and the bottom 50% receiver back more than they paid in when they file at the end of the year."You're full of **** Darkwolf. I'm probably in the bottom 10% at the moment, and guess what. I pay taxes. Holy ****. Not only do I pay them, I don't whine like a little ***** at having to pay them. Last I recall my refund was much less than what I paid. Not only that, but if and when I reach the top 10%, I don't imagine I'd start. Your percent of income taxed doesn't even break 35 until you've broken 300,000. Boo-hoo. If you don't like the taxes here go to Europe. You'll kiss the ground when you return.

Yes, the current tax code is horrific, but no one has presented a better alternative.

umm Alex, I think I can promise you that more or less all European countries have atleast twice as high taxes as the States. The US is, believe it or not a low-tax land.

Joacqin, I don't agree. In my view, Americans pay a whole lot more of taxes. It is true, that most (not all, they're some countries, which do not have taxes like that, ahm mine) European countries have "nominally" higher taxes, but the tax-payer gets a lot of it back in services. Like who pays the dentist ??? A dentist costs a whole lotta money, who pays it ? How much have people to pay for the education of their children ? How is the whole infrastructure of the country ? That makes a huge difference. So comparing taxes is another thing which is nearly impossible, because there are so many things which have to be looked at. .> That's a job for a national economist.

I think in the end it's: Heh, I pay nominally less taxes, but I can't pay the bill of the dentist.

Or in other words, Swedes live in a paradies. A paradies, as far as I understand, has problems and needs some reform. But still, a paradies. I personally envy you for some of the benefits of the system you live in.

Now, I see, that there are problems with the system all over the place. But that's a system problem. If a lot of people get indifferent versus the system, they don't know what's going on, then problems is what they get.

Your percent of income taxed doesn't even break 35 until you've broken 300,000. What tax table are you looking at, Alex? I can guarantee that we paid more than 35% AND that our AGI is nowhere near 300,000.

Maybe you need a new accountant? But now we're getting seriously :yot:

[ May 12, 2003, 14:55: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

Chandos,

Bush 43 gave tax refunds based upon the next years taxes. Everyone did not receive a check, and it was part of a tax cut plan, not a redistribution of wealth. It was an attempt to stem the damage done to the economy under the Clinton administration, and it was probably doomed from the start. Evens "stupid" Bush 43 was able to see that the economy was in for a major correction, and he made desperation move to save it. It turned out to be ill advised, but at least he tried. Also, he was had just become President, so exactly which election was he buying votes for? :rolleyes:

The earned income credit that Rally is talking about is for individuals. It is a pure redistribution of wealth plan. When I used to work in banking I used to have people who supposedly made less that $30k in household income bring in over $8K in refund checks. They used to laugh in my face about how they were cheating on their taxes, really making more money than I did by taking jobs where they are paid in cash, and then robbing me by letting the government take money from me to give to them. My only revenge was the fact that I got to turn down their loan requests for insufficient income :evil: I am not talking about individuals, I had at least a half dozen of these every year.

While the rich are avoiding paying taxes through loop-holes and high-priced lawyers and accountants, the middle class continues to believe that the poor get the hand-outs while the rich are paying through the nose to keep America going. That is the American fairy tale.
Quite buying the Democratic liberal bull**** and start doing your own research. It is all public record, and no, the majority the taxes are not paid by the middle class. The top 1% of wage earners in 2000 provided over 43% of the total federal revenue. The top 25% pay over 3/4 of the total.

As far as the shot that the Republicans are responsible for all the evil of big corporations in America, well lets just say that individuals are much more responsible for their actions. Remember, the ultimate form of Democracy is a free market.

Alex,

If you are in the bottom 10% that would put your gross income at about $17k per year. If you are that far down the income bracket, quite wasting time posting to internet forums, and start working and studying more.

Also, if you are that low, and you are paying Federal income tax, find someone else to do your taxes for you, because you are making mistakes somewhere. You should be getting back more that you pay in unless you are a full time student and mommy and daddy are still claiming you on their taxes, and if that is the case, quite whining. As far as your claim about going to Europe, as our European friends here have stated, they receive services for the taxes they pay. Perhaps their governments are more efficient, but I will never endorse or vote for such a system in the US because to government is way too inefficient, and the return would justify they expense. Remember, the US government pays $500 for the same hammer you and I can by at Home Depot for $24.99. What do you think the US government would pay for a $10K heart bypass? There are better ways to address the health care issue in America (like making insurance premiums 100% deductible for individuals, or even companies, just keep Uncle Sam out of it)

Capstone,

WASP

White
Anglo
Saxon
Protestant

A term that has negative connotations in much of America.

Chandos the red wrote:

While the rich are avoiding paying taxes through loop-holes and high-priced lawyers and accountants, the middle class continues to believe that the poor get the hand-outs while the rich are paying through the nose to keep America going. That is the American fairy tale. Darwolf wrote:

Quite buying the Democratic liberal bull**** and start doing your own research. It is all public record, and no, the majority the taxes are not paid by the middle class. The top 1% of wage earners in 2000 provided over 43% of the total federal revenue. The top 25% pay over 3/4 of the total. Tax-Evasion is a real problem. And it's no secret, that there are amries of lawyers, bankers, economics, tax-specialists who are earning their own income in counselling people how to "legally" evade taxes. And it's no big secret either, that usally taxholes are fulll of loopholse, special treatment of special groups.

And the main problem is, a hairdresser has usually not the chance to claim, that she "lives" in Moncaco and not in Berlin.

I made a little list, I guess a little longer search can show more intersting details.

And by the way, thank you EU for crashing on Swiss civil rights and liberties. F=== u

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2025244.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2681655.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2161055.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2355147.stm


Boris Becker has been sentenced to two years' probation by a Munich court for failing to pay millions of euros in German taxes.
In February this year, Guernsey and Jersey signed up to an international programme to block tax evasion.

The case revolved around the prosecution's allegation that Mr Becker had maintained a residence in Munich while claiming to live in the tax haven of Monaco.

China is increasing its vigilance over high-earning individuals in an attempt to crack down on income tax evasion, according to the state-controlled China Daily.
The report follows the arrest in Beijing last week of a famous actress, Liu Xiaoqing, on charges of large-scale tax evasion.

There are at least 200,000 enterprises in the Chinese capital whose employees paid no individual income tax last year, the paper said, citing the municipal taxation department.

The Caribbean countries of Grenada and St Vincent & the Grenadines also agreed to come on board.

The EU has worked for years to convince other financial centres to agree to share information.

These include the United States, as well as Switzerland, Andorra, Monaco, Lichtenstein and San Marino.

EU member state Luxembourg has refused to share information until competing centres such as Switzerland, Andorra, Monaco, Lichtenstein and San Marino, as well as the United States, do the same.

And Switzerland has also abstained from the OECD's efforts, a situation which - along with the reluctance of seven small non-OECD states to sign up - brought a warning from the Chancellor.

"Those who are not prepared to introduce (exchange of information) will find themselves increasingly isolated against the growing consensus of the international community," he said.

The OECD's worry is that criminals and tax evaders have been using the tight secrecy laws and loose regulatory regimes of offshore centres to cover financial dealings banned in their home countries.

Yago, no one EVER claimed that the tax system wasn't screwed up or rife with abuse!

that the tax system wasn't screwed up or rife with abuse! Huh ?

We agree then. For once. :D ;)

Tax collection will always be a problem, and there's always going to be a group that claims they're getting the short end of the stick. Also, the way those taxes are spent by the government is another hot topic that is always going to tick people off. No country is perfect in this regard.

What this has to do with the Deck of Weasel's, I have no clue, but the topic seems to have morphed a bit.

My question on taxes (and the reason I'm a right winger) is this: would I rather work hard, make money, and then be permitted to spend my money the way I wish? Or, would I rather work hard, make money, and then have the government take it and give me back what they feel I need?

I go with option one. Being Christian, part of my expenditure would be in contributions to the poor (as it is now) so please don't start in with the "lack of love for the less fotunate" stuff.

Darkwolf -- If anyone has been buying politcal bull, it is you. It is common knowledge that the poor don't vote. So, your theory that dems buying "votes" has no validity. If they did, this would be a very different country. I mean no disrespect and am not being sarcastic (for once), but you are in a no-win argument. First, how accurate are those numbers you cite? What are your sources? Second, if they are correct, do they include the rich as individuals, or do your numbers include businesses and corporations? How many, and what streams of income does our government have? Such as taxes on gasoline, which even the poor pay. Third, assuming that rich individuals pay the majority of taxes, what does that say about the distribution of wealth in America? Do so few really control that amount of America's wealth? If that is the case, then the "American dream" cannot be as inclusive it is claimed to be.

Here is something to think about. S&Ls received 500 billion dollar bail-out program from the federal government. Money that was just given to them because they were suffering from deregulation that they faught years to get. It is the worst example of corporate welfare ever.

Second, the FCC gave away -- yes the airwaves are owned by the public -- to the electronics industry for HD TV. Why? Because they are huge campaign contributors to political candidates, both parties are included in this scandal. Value: $70 billion.

My sources: Just type Ralph Nader into your web browser and it will take you to any number of his sites, including, essential.org, third world traveler, The Ralph Nader Reader, Citizen Watch, etc. Take your choice.


Dapaara -- I'm glad that we agree that as Christians we have a responsibility to the "less fortunate." But charity is a tricky thing. I'm very cynical about large organizations that do charitable work. But we had one here in Houston, Kid Care. This lady started in her kitchen, making lunches for hungry kids in her neighborhood. It grew and got a lot of media attention. It looked good and I thought, well this is a different bunch; they really are doing something for hungry children.

Fast forward, to now. Last week this lady was appearing before a judge and has had to resign as head of the organization she created because she was stealing from the fund. Well, what do you do? You help, but everywhere you turn there is dishonesty.

If we have these values, then our government needs to reflect the values of its people. If we agree that children should not go hungry, then it our collective responsibility that they should not. So should not government policy reflect these values?

[ May 13, 2003, 07:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Just type Ralph Nader into your web browser and it will take you to any number of his sites, including...Chandos the Red, if you think that Ralph Nader is an unbiased source of information, WAKE UP! :coffee: I've been on the inside of one of his targetted industries and had access to the raw data behind one of his frenzied "reports." He's as much of a spin doctor as any other politician out there. That's not to say that he hasn't accomplished some significant good as a consumer advocate for safe and effective products, but why is his version of social engineering any more palatable than anyone else's?

Chandos,

My sources for recent data are varied across the internet. However they are consistent with the research that I did in college on these items while getting my degree in finance with minors in accounting and economics. I have actually looked at the public IRS records, and done the statistics myself, have you?


If anyone has been buying political bull, it is you. It is common knowledge that the poor don't vote. So, your theory that dems buying "votes" has no validity. Just like so much other "common knowledge", that is wrong. The greatest turnout at presidential, and congressional elections is among the poor, the unemployed, and retired. Amazingly enough, that is exactly who the Dem target with their lies, "like the Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich", "the Republicans want to make sure people don't get a fair wage", and my personal favorite, "the Republicans want to steal your Social Security" (by the way, Clinton "borrowed" more from the SS trust than any other president).

Here is something to think about. S&Ls received 500 billion dollar bail-out program from the federal government. Money that was just given to them because they were suffering from deregulation that they faught years to get. It is the worst example of corporate welfare ever. How many S&L's are there in your hometown? Guess that they didn't really bail them out so much as prop them up until the sound financial institutions could absorb them. That said, the "bail-out" was to prevent people from losing everything. You statement is ignorant. If the Gov't would have walked away from the S&L's the real losers would have been the poor. Not only would they have lost everything they had in the bank, but also it would have set off an economic disaster that would have made the Great Depression look like a boom time. I worked in the banking industry for just shy of 7 years, and financial intuitions were part of my emphasis in college. Bad choice for an example. ;)

Second, the FCC gave away -- yes the airwaves are owned by the public -- to the electronics industry for HD TV. Why? Because they are huge campaign contributors to political candidates, both parties are included in this scandal. Value: $70 billion. Value by what standard? The broadcasters would never have paid that for it (do you even know the mechanism by which the gov't sells radio bandwidth? If you did, you would know that you can't make a claim of its value). The return the government will get from the taxes on the purchase of new expensive TVs will more than offset any money they could have made in the auction of the airwaves, and guess who will be paying all that tax, the rich. Of course the liberal in you will find it terribly unfair that the rich get to watch HDTV while the rest of us are stuck in low-res hell.

My sources: Just type Ralph Nader into your web browser and it will take you to any number of his sites, including, essential.org, third world traveler, The Ralph Nader Reader, Citizen Watch, etc. Take your choice.
Rally already caught this one, but I will say this. All of you Nader myrmidons, quit listening to what he says, and start watching his actions. Look at the lawsuits he files and look at his congressional voting record. You will find actions speak much louder than words. I think that many of you will be surprised when you find out what he really stands for.

If we have these values, then our government needs to reflect the values of its people. If we agree that children should not go hungry, then it our collective responsibility that they should not. So should not government policy reflect these values? I agree completely. But should the government feed children, or get the economy to where it feed children by employing more people?

One interesting fact, and if you want the source I will go hunt it down, though I am getting tired of having to prove myself time and time again...
George W Bush gives much more to charity than Albert "I invented the internet" Gore. Texas gives more per capita to charity than California or Massachusetts. What does that prove? Nothing, but it does make me wonder why liberals are so fast with charity when it is not their money, and why greedy conservatives are so giving with theirs. :confused:

Albert "I invented the internet" Gore Urban Legend. :D

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

Amazingly enough, that is exactly who the Dem target with their lies, "like the Republicans want to give tax breaks to the rich", "the Republicans want to make sure people don't get a fair wage", and my personal favorite, "the Republicans want to steal your Social SecurityThe federal goverment says:

But many of the new service jobs did not pay as highly, nor did they carry the many benefits, as manufacturing jobs. The resulting financial squeeze on many families encouraged large numbers of women to enter the work force. Salaries were no longer set to reward employees equally but rather to attract and retain types of workers who were in short supply, such as computer software experts. This helped contribute even more to the widening gap in pay between highly skilled and unskilled workers. In 1979, median weekly earnings ranged from $215 for workers with less than a secondary school education to $348 for college graduates. In 1998, that range was $337 to $821. While the minimum wage had increased almost annually in the 1970s, there were few increases during the 1980s and 1990s. This helped contribute even more to the widening gap in pay between highly skilled and unskilled workers -> the Republicans want to make sure people don't get a fair wage.

Well, don't want to go into domestic politics. But at least, there's a problem with fair wages.

Back to taxes. The federal goverment says:

The federal government's chief source of funds to cover its expenses is the income tax on individuals, which in 1999 brought in about 48 percent of total federal revenues. Payroll taxes, which finance the Social Security and Medicare programs, have become increasingly important as those programs have grown. In 1998, payroll taxes accounted for one-third of all federal revenues; employers and workers each had to pay an amount equal to 7.65 percent of their wages up to $68,400 a year. The federal government raises another 10 percent of its revenue from a tax on corporate profits, while miscellaneous other taxes account for the remainder of its income. - individuals, which in 1999 brought in about 48 percent of total federal revenues

- In 1998, payroll taxes accounted for one-third of all federal revenues

-The federal government raises another 10 percent of its revenue from a tax on corporate profits

-while miscellaneous other taxes account for the remainder of its income

48% + 1/3 + 10 % = approx. 90 % plus misc approx. 10 %

With the rich are the only one paying taxes, there must be something wrong. When the payroll-taxes make 1/3 of the federal income. Corporate and misc. make together 20 %. Misc. I guess, anyone has to pay.

http://www.usinfo.pl/aboutusa/business/labor.htm
http://www.usinfo.pl/aboutusa/business/business.htm

Did I mention that I love google ?

Don't get me wrong, Chandos, I'm not saying that the government should collect no taxes or that they should not be involved somewhat in aiding the poor. I just don't thgink that the sole responsibility for aiding the poor should be the government -- handouts are no solution. I prefer the right wing approach to aiding the poor -- get them working, help them to help themselves so they can get on their feet and not need any more help. I find that many government programs actually perpetuate the problem by making these underpriviledged permanent welfare recipients.

In addition, I feel that a government is ot the most effective way to do it -- private business is, IMHO, more effective. Now, they need tobe regulated so they don't do heinous things to cut corners, but overall, I'd sooner trust a private charitable organization that is regulated (so as to avoid problems like your soup kitchen lady) than the government.

The bottom line is that I do not like having vast amounts of my paycheck being taken and redistributed at someone else's whim.

Yago,

Your statistics are skewed by the fact that they include social security and Medicare. Those are services and retirement plans. They are not part of "Federal Income Tax".

Misc revenues are not necessarily paid equally and by all. There are many usage taxes and trade tariffs that are paid in different ways.

Perhaps I should be more clear. Of all the “Individual Income Tax” revenues collected by the US Federal Government, the vast majority of revenue are paid by the smallest minority of people, and the majority of people pay no income tax at all, while almost half receive back more than they pay in.

Taxing the rich to give it to the poor is not what this nation was founded on, and in the long run, it is counter-productive to the public good. It is good for the politicians however, as it creates dependency on the government, the long-standing goal of the Democratic Party.

Don't believe that, then why do the Democrats want to block affordable healthcare plans for people?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030513-43733062.htm

Oh and Chandos, as the Insuarnce industry is a TRILLION $ a year business, don't you think they would have those nasty, big business loving Republicans in their pockets? Amazing, the Republicans are trying to help people, and the Dimocrats (not a typo) can only think of how they can get people more dependant, who cares how they suffer in the meantime! :rolleyes:

The more you look into this, the more you will find out who is really on your side! :D

Thank you, Yago, thank you, for taking the time to put some hard data on this topic. Something that the "business" people on this board seem less inclined to do.

Lord Dapaara -- The Welfare Reform Act has made it so that welfare is no longer "permanent." That bill was passed by a republican congress and signed by Bill Clinton. He signed it because he had promised to reform welfare during the campaign. I think the time limit is now two years.

Also, if you have ever worked in private business, as I have, you would see that it is not efficient at all. Most can't even manage their own inventory. You would think that mult-billion dollar corporations were well-run. That is another conservative myth. I've seen it from the inside. Big business efficiency go together like military intelligence.

Darkwolf -- Unlike most republicans, Mr. Nader is not owned by big business. Thus, I would be more inclined to believe him. Your statement is not very well thought out for a business major regarding S&ls. If you took 500 billion dollars and gave it to every poor person who had an S&L account, who you claim would have suffered as a result somehow of S&L failures, each would have been far better off. Besides, even I know that the federal government insures money on deposit. And I was only a Liberal Arts major in college(English Literature, with a concentration in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, since you wanted to throw credentials around). Maybe that reading skill helped whenever I walked into an S&L and read the big sign on the wall that stated as much. So your idea that they would have lost out is nonsense. Maybe basic reading should be required in business college as well.

I gave the reasons why the rich like charity so much in my first post and I'm not impressed with Shrub's pretense of caring about humanity.

Rally - I have worked for Ralph Nader on and off for years now, mostly against big polluters here. I was glad to be a part of the drive to stop a toxic waste site that was planned to be put next to Lake Houston some years back, from which most of the city's water supply is taken. But thanks for the coffee pix. I loved it. ;)

Chandos,

Your statement is not very well thought out for a business major regarding S&ls. If you took 500 billion dollars and gave it to every poor person who had an S&L account, who you claim would have suffered as a result somehow of S&L failures, each would have been far better off. Besides, even I know that the federal government insures money on deposit. And I was only a Liberal Arts major in college(English Literature, with a concentration in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, since you wanted to throw credentials around). Maybe that reading skill helped whenever I walked into an S&L and read the big sign on the wall that stated as much. I am tired of this! You are talking out of your ass Chandos. If you read the sign you might have noticed that there was the word "Corporation" at the end of it! The insurance that is provided to deposits is though corporations that the government set up. The reason that they are corporations is because it limits the government's exposure. Do you know what happens if the "corporation" runs out of money? They start paying pennies on the dollar, and it is done across the board, the poor don't get a break (go educate yourself on Fed policy regarding "too big to fail"). Second, quit playing democratic/liberal heartstrings games, the economic cost of your proposal to "just give" the $500B to people would have been devastating. It sounds so good, and it makes people feel so good to think such thoughts, but in the real world, it makes no sense. I would suggest you quit making statements about how the government should spend its money until you have enough knowledge to know the economic consequences of those choices.

Tell you what, why don't you go down to the local hospital and tell the heart surgeon how he should be doing bypass surgery, you couldn't have any less knowledge on that topic than this one. :rolleyes:

Breathe, Darkwolf, breathe. :)

Chandos, the issue isn't really if big business is efficient or not. The question is whether or not the government is MORE efficient, and that I highly doubt. In any event, my original thesis stands -- who has the right to spend the money I earn? The Government or Me? I vote for me, and I vote for every person keeping more of what they make instead of turning those funds over to bureaucrats. Now, this does not make me a full Republican (or as close as I could be given my country of origin) because the Republicans like to spend money too -- just on different things.

I just don't like the argument that other people are more competant than I am when it comes to the money I sweated to earn.

At lord Depaara: I like you cooling intervention. ;)

I just don't like the argument that other people are more competant than I am when it comes to the money I sweated to earn. I believe that to. But I belive additonally that the voter decides with his vote, how the money is spend and how "efficient" the spending of the Goverment is. Of course, in a two-party system, the "vote" which is at the voters proposal is very limited, but it is still a vote.

And I believe the concept, that the voter when he votes, he has his own best interest in mind. Voting works like the market. I "buy" what I think is the best option. The problem is, when a lot of voters abstain, the "market" doesn't work properly. So it's OK, when the rich want to pay less taxes. But it's OK for the poor, to say, you have to pay taxes, we want to send our children to school, so they're going to have a brighter future. If all "votes" are in the "market", it is likely, the best way for the community is going to be found.

Now, to the Republican party of the USA. I personally think they are a bad deal. The Democrats are a tiny little bit better. If I had to chose, I would chose neither. But I had, against my will, but the threat of Latin has forced me, some economics classes too. And I learnt, that if one party "is" big goverment, than it's the Republican party. Everytime there in power (like right now), goverment spending sky rocks. And I know, that Darkwolf knows that very well himself, because I guess he had national econimics too.

Darkwolf -- I could care less if you are tired of it or not. The fact still stands that the government insures the account. But you are right, if there are large corporations involved then it is unlikely that account holders will get back what they should.

I can't see why we can't give 500 billion dollars to the poor when we are giving it to the rich everyday. What do have against the poor anyway?

The fact remains that the American people need to take back their government from corporate special interest lobbies. Even one of your own republicans, Sen. John McCain, agrees with that point of view and has been fighting for years to reform the system. I still recommend that you check out Ralph Nader's sites to find out what is really going on with the corporate welfare system that is being run by the US government.

There are economists who write on his websites as well and they have a very different view of economics than you. In literary studies there are different viewpoints for approaching any given work or writer. The same is true for economics, and I am surprised that I should have to explain such a basic attitude to someone with your level of education.

I'm sure at some point we will discuss the state of the health care system, but we should leave that for another thread. Also, I should mention to follow-up on our dialogue about the FCC giving away the public airwaves: How much did the public get from broadcasters? The answer is 0. What a surprise.

Added:
Yago - You are right. Democrats are only marginally better than republicans these days. In fact, many of them may as well be republicans. Although they do have a better track record of public service from FDR to about the time of Carter. But Carter was nothing to write home about, and compared to politicians these days, even old Richard Nixon is looking pretty good. Things are that bad!

[ May 15, 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I give up, I guess my business sciences degree and 7 years experience in the financial services industry makes me less of an expert on the economy than a computer salesman with a liberal arts degree. :rolleyes:

As far as Nader goes, actions speak louder than words, and like I said, why don't you look at his and the other liberals (American standards) actions. Name just one item on their agenda that does not create dependence on the government, just one. :sosad:

I guess everyone will just have to make up their own minds. Do you want to be responsible for yourself and make your own decisions (Libertarian or Republican views), or do you want the government to take responsibility of you and provide what they choose to give you (Democratic or Green Party views)? :confused:

I give up, I guess my business sciences degree and 7 years experience in the financial services industry makes me less of an expert on the economy than a computer salesman with a liberal arts degree. At Darkwolf: No one says you don't understand economcis. Nor does anyone pretend to understand more than you. But still, you are not the only economic, who stated his opinion and gave agruments for it. And maybe other people are by arguements of other economists more convinced as by yours. That does not mean, you don't understand your job or your field. Economics is just like every other science, there are different schools of thoughts and opinions and you know that very well too. But I read about your Oklahoma expiriences with Democrats in another thread. I see you point there. But still, as far as I know, neither Demorcrats or Republicans are the champions of free market. They both seem to despise it, in my view.

I guess everyone will just have to make up their own minds And it is not, like you live in the only country with such tendencies. But "conservative" mostly means, supporting anti-free-market powers, that's why they are called conservative. That's the irony of political parties

Yago,

Conservative might mean anti-free market where you live, but the Republicans and conservatives in this county are the main force behind free markets, the Democrats view on the economy was best summed up by Ronald Reagan:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it"

Though he was speaking of government in general, it was said after a period of Democratic control of the US government.

Darkwolf, it may be true that the Republicans claim, that their are for free-trade. Internationally, they have a reputation for wanting the opposite:

The US decision to impose tariffs on steel imports broke global trade rules, the World Trade Organisation has said in a preliminary ruling.

The EU and several other countries complained to the WTO after the US imposed tariffs of between 8% and 30% on certain kinds of foreign steel a year ago.

An official for the United Steelworkers of America said the interim finding was not surprising and he expected the Bush administration to appeal against it.

The EU and the numerous countries which complained, however, say US steelmakers have been slow to adjust to global over-capacity, and that the US government is simply trying to save jobs in electorally sensitive areas.

Even within the US, opponents of the policy have charged that, far from defending US jobs against unfair competition, the policy has contributed to the massive lay-offs seen in the US over the past year.

By making steel more expensive, one US industry group claimed, up to 200,000 jobs may have been lost in industries using steel in their products.

The White House had justified its decision - made just months before billions of dollars in new farm subsidies triggered another burst of international outrage - by accusing foreign producers of "dumping" steel on the US market at below its true cost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2889757.stm

This may be countered with the quarrel about gene-manipulated food. Genemanipulated (Sp ?) food is not a trade thing, it is a health thing. I am against Genemanipulated food, there is a legalization against it in my country (not EU-member) and as scientific facts are now, I don't want to be treated as a lab rat. Other countries have other regulations. Their right. I still refuse import of genemanipulated food.

Didn't look at it from an international perspective. Domestically Republicans are all about free trade, but they are also in general nationalistic (not a evil word in America since we don't have the history that Europe does with nationalism), so I could see where they are seen that way from a foreign nation's perspective. :o

That said, many Republicans feel that the Democrats give far too much away to foreign nations in the way of international trade concessions.

But Darkwolf, you see my point, the US and the "allies", East-Asia, Australia and Europe, have different economical interestes. There nearly is no common ground anymore. The US-Dollar so low as it is, hurts Europe. I hope they start to lowering rates for the Europ pretty soon. The thought, that the Americans pay their war bill, by keeping their currency low, so that the other rich countries can pay the bill without wanting it, is slightly annoying me.

Yago,

The US has no responsibility to keep the dollar at any level other than one that is beneficial to the US. For too many years the internationalists in this country have punished our economy in an attempt to "help" our "allies". This is just another form of economic aid, or bribery. As long as the US does not act in a predatory manner, the dollar can fall as far as the rest of the world will let it. If the Euro or any other nations currency is too strong and it is hurting their economy, it is up them to fix it.

So I guess what I am saying is that US monetary policy is only being percieved as predatory by those who are used to the US government artificially shoring up their economies by maintaing a "strong" dollar. Now that the US won't provide this form of economic aid, these nations are crying foul, and I say tough luck.

The US has no responsibility to keep the dollar at any level other than one that is beneficial to the US. For too many years the internationalists in this country have punished our economy in an attempt to "help" our "allies". This is just another form of economic aid, or bribery. As long as the US does not act in a predatory manner, the dollar can fall as far as the rest of the world will let it. If the Euro or any other nations currency is too strong and it is hurting their economy, it is up them to fix it.

Darkwolf, I fully agree with what you said. It's just, that Europe has no other choice, as to start minding their own business. That's just what I wanted to say. And minding their own business has as consequence, reconsidering alliances. I just think, the thought isn't wide spread in Europe enough. But the times are changing and the question will become more and more urgent.

What I meant to say is, those "relationships" between Europe and the US, are changing. That's the way it goes. I mean, there's a connection between countries who are not joining wars of the Americans and countries, who start to rethink, if they alway should do, what Americans want from them. In other words, the days of the Marshall-Plan are over.